This invention relates to a novel site specific binding system and novel compositions, and more particularly, to such a system and compositions which are useful in improved methods for ultrasonic imaging, drug or chemotherapeutic agent delivery, and diagnostic assays and detection systems.
Heretofore, with respect to ultrasonic imaging, although ultrasonic contrast agents based upon “bubble” technology have been demonstrated to develop an acoustic impedance mismatch by virtue of gas encapsulated either in protein (Feinstein et al., J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 1990; 16:316–324 and Keller et al., J. Am. Soc. Echo. 1989; 2:48–52), polysaccharide (Corday et al., J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 1984; 3:978–85) biodegradable polymers (Schneider et al., Invest. Radiol., 1993; 27:134–139 and Bichon et al., European Patent Application No. 8908103 67.4:1990) or lipids (D'Arrigo et al., J. Neurormag., 1991; 1: 134139; Simon et al., Invest. Radiol., 1992; 27:29–34; and Unger et al., Radiology 1992; 195:453–456), no experimental evidence of site-specific targeting of an acoustic contrast or imaging agent with resultant changes in the acoustic properties of the targeted tissue, surface or support are known. This lack of results has occurred despite numerous methods described in the literature for modifying such agents for targeting purposes, and the failure of past targeting approaches may be due to the chemical nature of the agents, production process limitations or particle instabilities.
Nongaseous acoustic contrast agents have been described including lipid emulsions (Fink et al., Ultrason. Imaging, 1985 7:191–197) liposomes (Lanza et al., J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 1992 (abstract); 19 (3 Suppl A) 114A), and perfluorocarbon emulsions (Mattrey et al., Radiology 1982; 145: 759–762 and Mattrey et al., Ultrasound Med. 1983; 2:173–176). As with the contrast agents discussed above, no demonstration of site targeted emulsion or liposome has been reported. Again, such failure may reflect instability of the particles, process incompatibilities or the chemical nature of the contrast agent. Lipid emulsions were evaluated by Fink et al. supra and did not exhibit adequate echogenicity in studies examining hepatic imaging. A unique chemical formulation of liposomes described by Lanza et al. supra was suggested to have the potential to be a targetable ultrasonic contrast but such has not been demonstrated to date. Perfluorocarbon emulsions, Perflubron (perfluorooctylbromide, P 100) and Flusol (perfluorodecalin and perfluorotripropylamine, F20) have been used as ultrasonic contrast agents and have been reported to accumulate in liver, spleen and tumors secondary to phagocytic uptake of emulsion particles at these sites (Mattrey et al. 1983, supra). These perfluorocarbon emulsions have also been noted to enhance Doppler signals and opacify lumens. Fluorocarbons and fluorocarbon emulsions for use as contrast agents are disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,927,623, 5,077,036, 4,838,274, 5,068,098, 5,114,703, 5,362,477, 5,362,478, 5,171,755, 5,304,325, 5,350,571 and 5,403,575. However, no demonstration of perfluorocarbon emulsions as a ligand targeted acoustic contrast system has been reported.
Previous descriptions of tissue or organ targeting in biomedical ultrasonics has referred to the collection of acoustically reflective particles within or around structural tissue abnormalities. Localized acoustic enhancement of tissue pathologies (e.g. malignancies) has not been ligand-directed but rather has depended upon differential dynamic rates of particle uptake and/or clearance between normal and malignant tissues. Such contrast agents have included aqueous solutions (Ophir et al., Ultrason. Imaging 1979, 1:265–279; Ophir et al., Ultrasound Med. Biol. 1989, 15:319–333; and Tyler et al., Ultrason. Imaging, 3:323–329), emulsions (Fink et al. Ultrason. Imaging, 1985, 7:191–197), and suspensions (Mattrey et al. 1982 supra and Mattrey et al., Radiology, 1987, 163:339–343). Although the possibility of ligand-directed ultrasonic contrast targeting with acoustically reflective liposomes has been suggested, no successful applications of this concept have been reported (Lanza et al. 1992, supra and Valentini et al., J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 1995, 25:16A). Previous approaches to targeting in vivo of particles have involved direct conjugation of a ligand (e.g. monoclonal antibody) to a vesicle by a variety of methods (see, for example, Torchlin et al., Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 1978, 85:983–990; Endoh et al., J. Immunol. Methods, 1981, 44:7985; Hashimoto et al., J. Immunol. Methods, 1983, 62:155–162 and Martin et al., Biochemistry, 1981, 20:4229–4238).
There remains a need for new and improved methodologies for ligand-based binding systems which can be adapted as an ultrasonic contrast system permitting detection of molecular moieties such as peptides, carbohydrates or nucleic acids and whose uses can range from ultrasound-based ELISA-like laboratory diagnostic assays in liquid and solid phase systems and in cell cultures; electrophoretic, chromatographic and hybridization detection systems to the detection of thrombi, infections, cancers and infarctions in patients with the use of conventional ultrasonic imaging methods.